Zhen Li wrote: There's nowhere along the line any sensible person can hang their coat. However, if one is looking for credible pricing, only the market can provide credible pricing - if the cost doesn't come up in the market place, it doesn't really exist.

This is because the market externalizes the costs of cleaning up after itself onto the consumer. As the cost of cleaning up after the market becomes higher and more costly, eventually the consumer have no choice but to enact legislations which limit the markets power to sell highly polluting commodities, and to impose fees on those who use them.

It is similar to drugs — the human cost of cleaning up after drugs such as cocaine, meth and heroin are too high -- therefore, these commodities are strictly controlled markets in which a class of professionals is licensed to dispense them. Governments exist because markets exist. Markets exist because governments exist. Markets must be controlled and regulated (rather than planned), and carbon taxation is one way for governments to control the market in petrochemicals.

This is because the market externalizes the costs of cleaning up after itself onto the consumer. As the cost of cleaning up after the market becomes higher and more costly, eventually the consumer have no choice but to enact legislations which limit the markets power to sell highly polluting commodities, and to impose fees on those who use them.

Well, you can't quite clean up after yourself as regards pollution in the air (planting trees doesn't specifically target particular carbon output), only change the technology. Of course, that begs the question as to whether one should really be considering carbon dioxide a pollutant.

It is similar to drugs — the human cost of cleaning up after drugs such as cocaine, meth and heroin are too high -- therefore, these commodities are strictly controlled markets in which a class of professionals is licensed to dispense them. Governments exist because markets exist. Markets exist because governments exist. Markets must be controlled and regulated (rather than planned), and carbon taxation is one way for governments to control the market in petrochemicals.

Granted in some cases control and/or regulation, or banning, is a good idea. But the fact that one 'can' do such a thing as a government, doesn't imply that one must (or should) do such a thing, which is why this little causal loop isn't a universal.

Zhen Li wrote:Of course, that begs the question as to whether one should really be considering carbon dioxide a pollutant.

Look, I haven't got much time (or, frankly, patience) at the moment because I'm still cleaning up after a cyclone but I can't let that one go past.
Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Kim O'Hara wrote:Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Simon E. wrote:That is your definition of a denialist Mr O Hara , one who denies AGW while knowing that it is true ?

That makes no sense at all.

I am a denialist because I DONT know that it is true.

Denialism
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event". Wikipedia

Simon E. wrote:Which of course means that I don't understand the science...

Sounds more like you fit Kim's last category.

Simon E. wrote:I will now leave you all to agree with each other and wax indignant...

Zhen Li wrote:Of course, that begs the question as to whether one should really be considering carbon dioxide a pollutant.

Look, I haven't got much time (or, frankly, patience) at the moment because I'm still cleaning up after a cyclone but I can't let that one go past.
Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Kim O'Hara wrote:Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Simon E. wrote:That is your definition of a denialist Mr O Hara , one who denies AGW while knowing that it is true ?

That makes no sense at all.

I am a denialist because I DONT know that it is true.

Denialism
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event". Wikipedia

Simon E. wrote:Which of course means that I don't understand the science...

Sounds more like you fit Kim's last category.

Simon E. wrote:I will now leave you all to agree with each other and wax indignant...

We all know you'll be back.

Thanks, dharmagoat
Simon, to me you sound like a genuine sceptic - one who says, "I haven't (yet) seen enough evidence to convince me but I am in principle willing to accept the truth of the proposition if I do see more evidence."
I don't see anything wrong with genuine scepticism. In the case of AGW, I hope genuine sceptics are interested or concerned enough to seek out more evidence. Doing so usually leads to acceptance of the theory and often leads to more concern about the way we're going.
That said, an educated person in western society these days who hasn't seen and heard enough about the issue to form an opinion is a bit ... unusual, let's say.

But the majority of self-identified sceptics, and the overwhelming majority of publicly active self-identified sceptics, are not sceptics at all. I called them "pseudo-sceptics" for a while but "denialists" is a better term. Some are "in denial" for the usual pop-psych reasons - simple aversion to truths which demand that they make changes they don't like - and that is, I guess, forgiveable up to a point, but many of the most vocal are simply lying and simply in it for the money and that is inexcusable.

If you were to adjust your attitude Kim, do you admit that you might have to make an uncomfortable adjustment? Perhaps some personal compromise? And, to what extent have you attempted to disprove your own beliefs? Have you analysed the primary sources yourself? By your own admission, you haven't and won't, because you rely on the mainstream media, since you believe that they are a trustworthy source of truth under most circumstances.

Zhen Li wrote:If you were to adjust your attitude Kim, do you admit that you might have to make an uncomfortable adjustment? Perhaps some personal compromise? And, to what extent have you attempted to disprove your own beliefs? Have you analysed the primary sources yourself? By your own admission, you haven't and won't, because you rely on the mainstream media, since you believe that they are a trustworthy source of truth under most circumstances.

Zhen Li, you are lying about me, and not for the first time. Please stop, and apologise.